Ingol v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Ingol v. State

303 N.E.2d 49, 261 Ind. 329, 1973 Ind. LEXIS 462

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 9, 1973

Docket1272S179

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 303 N.E.2d 49 (Ingol v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ingol v. State, 303 N.E.2d 49, 261 Ind. 329, 1973 Ind. LEXIS 462 (Ind. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Hunter, J.

This is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree. The appellant raises the -following issues for our determination :

(1) Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial on appellant’s motion alleging discovery of new evidence that an accomplice, who had denied a promise of leniency at trial, later received a one-year suspended sentence for armed robbery;

(2) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give certain requested instructions to the jury.

Appellant was charged with first- degree murder in the killing of Jerome Zuber during an attempted robbery of a liquor store operated by the victim. Upon trial by jury, appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the indiana State Prison. ......

*330 *329 A substantial portion of the evidence which-, led ■ to appellant’s conviction consisted of the testimony of - an alleged *330 accomplice, George Watson, age 18.' On cross-examination, Watson denied that he had been promised leniency in return for his State’s testimony. Appellant contends that because Watson was subsequently granted leniency, this fact alone serves to impeach the witness’s trial testimony to the extent that a new trial should have been granted. We disagree. Appellant does not offer any evidence that at the time of trial a “bargain” had been reached between the prosecution and Watson and that, therefore, Watson was lying about the promise of leniency. The mere fact that the State’s witness received a lenient sentence does not, by itself, establish that Watson was lying at trial. Appellant does not allege that any other evidence exists to impeach Watson's credibility.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing certain of his requested instructions. However, the appellant neither sets out the instructions in his brief, nor does he offer any cogent argument on behalf of his contentions. Thus, the appellant has waived -this issue.

AP. 8.3(A) (7).

For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

Arterburn, C.J., Given and Prentice, JJ., concur; DeBruler, J., concurs in result.

Note. — Reported in 303 N. E. 2d 49.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hunter, J.

This is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree. The appellant raises the -following issues for our determination :

(1) Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial on appellant’s motion alleging discovery of new evidence that an accomplice, who had denied a promise of leniency at trial, later received a one-year suspended sentence for armed robbery;

(2) Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give certain requested instructions to the jury.

Appellant was charged with first- degree murder in the killing of Jerome Zuber during an attempted robbery of a liquor store operated by the victim. Upon trial by jury, appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the indiana State Prison. ......

*330 *329 A substantial portion of the evidence which-, led ■ to appellant’s conviction consisted of the testimony of - an alleged *330 accomplice, George Watson, age 18.' On cross-examination, Watson denied that he had been promised leniency in return for his State’s testimony. Appellant contends that because Watson was subsequently granted leniency, this fact alone serves to impeach the witness’s trial testimony to the extent that a new trial should have been granted. We disagree. Appellant does not offer any evidence that at the time of trial a “bargain” had been reached between the prosecution and Watson and that, therefore, Watson was lying about the promise of leniency. The mere fact that the State’s witness received a lenient sentence does not, by itself, establish that Watson was lying at trial. Appellant does not allege that any other evidence exists to impeach Watson's credibility.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing certain of his requested instructions. However, the appellant neither sets out the instructions in his brief, nor does he offer any cogent argument on behalf of his contentions. Thus, the appellant has waived -this issue.

AP. 8.3(A) (7).

For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

Arterburn, C.J., Given and Prentice, JJ., concur; DeBruler, J., concurs in result.

Note. — Reported in 303 N. E. 2d 49.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 N.E.2d 49, 261 Ind. 329, 1973 Ind. LEXIS 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingol-v-state-ind-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack